[OBW]

First, I would say that just because Jesus said we would be like angels in resurrection, and John saw an angel and fell down to worship, it is not clear that they were actually talking about the same thing. John's inclination was based on a recognized difference between himself and the heavenly beings, even if just angels. But it is also noteworthy that some of the angels mentioned in the OT are sometimes thought to actually have been the Son incognito. I don't know the theological implications of this, but it would give John's actions a different consideration.

As for the whole "becoming Christ" thing, it is quite different to say that we become as he is and that we become him. But what seems to be more troublesome in that whole flawed line of theology is that they expect to get there without any overt activity on their part that could be seen a being obedient to the commandments of Christ, most notably to love your neighbor as yourself. And tied to this is the general command concerning righteousness. If I take Lee's way, the Beatitudes should read "blessed are those who disdain distinctions of right and wrong for theirs is the tree of life," followed by a discourse in how paying any attention to righteousness is just from the "wrong tree."

That is how we are supposed to become Christ "in life but not in deity." By ignoring the things that Christ commanded. By remaining openly disdainful of every Christian that does not choose to come the "way of the church."

As for terms like "in the body," the easiest way to get around the questions on those is to ignore the terms. If you are Christian, you are in the body. If you are in the body, you are in the church. It is best if you actually assemble with others who are in the church. (BTW, I am using the term "church" in a generic way, not in the way of a group that declares they are the only true church within a secular, political boundary.)

I would be careful how I read Lewis. I don't think he was in any way thinking that we would be gods in the sense that Lee taught. It is a reference to becoming what we should be. We should be God's image on the earth. Compared to fallen man, Adam and Eve were kind of like gods.

Whatever verses are used to support the "becoming God" theology, I can only say that there is probably something in the reading that is not really there. It is a hallmark of Lee's Bible exposition. Some of the teachings are said to be based on verses, but it is nearly impossible now to see that it really says what he said it does. I am convinced that we "simply" accepted whatever he claimed was said as being true without real critical consideration. Without thinking about it ourselves. If Lee said that the verse meant "X," then it must be true. I was gone before teachings like the minister of the age (MOTA) and others really took hold. But we still took Lee at his word. To the exclusion of our own good minds to read the text and ask "but does it really say that??"